Serial robber wins legal battle over being denied parole

The High Court ruled that parole commissioners had unlawfully refused to adjourn Mark Toal’s case for witnesses to be called.

Mr Justice McCloskey held that the panel’s decision was procedurally unfair.

A further hearing will take place next week to determine a final remedy.

In 2012 Toal, 33, was jailed for eight years for an armed raid on the pharmacy at Carrick Hill in north Belfast the previous year.

He had entered brandishing a bread knife and demanding the chemist hand over cash and pills.

Toal left the shop with a quantity of tablets and cash, but was arrested by police a short distance away.

He was convicted of robbery, possessing a bladed article in public, criminal damage, attempted criminal damage and assaulting police.

His criminal record dates from the age of 13 and contains more than 100 further convictions, including an earlier robbery at the pharmacy in 2004.

Earlier this year a single parole commissioner provisionally directed that Toal should not be released on licence.

During a further hearing in August a panel of three commissioners declined his application to adjourn for witnesses to be called and examined.

They also confirmed that Toal would not be released on licence.

Under that determination he would not be eligible for a further hearing until May 2018.

Toal’s lawyers mounted a judicial review challenge against the parole commissioners, claiming the decision was unfair.

Backing their case on the issue of calling witnesses, Mr Justice McCloskey said: “The panel erred in law in its assessment, consideration and determination of the applicant’s adjournment application.”

The judge concluded that the commissioners’ refusal to defer its final determination until they received oral evidence from a probation officer and other witnesses deprived Toal of his right to a fair hearing and procedurally fair decision-making process.

He added: “The mere possibility that the panel’s substantive decision might have been more favourable to the applicant if the procedural course urged on his behalf had been adopted suffices for this conclusion to be made.”

Parties in the case are now expected to make submissions on whether an order quashing the decision should be made.